This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Agenda 21
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
montezuma7
Has anyone actually read the entire agenda 21 paper on the UN website? It's sooo long and wordy, reminds me of most government babble, but I've heard a lot of concerning things about it. If you google it you can get a lot of conspiracy theory kind of blogs right away. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts on it are.
I don't have an opinion on agenda 21 specifically, but I am strongly opposed to the idea of controlling carbon emissions and madmade global warming destroying the world, putting special interest environmental concerns ahead of economic concerns, and I am VERY strongly opposed to the UN influencing US policy so directly. So I guess because of all those reasons I'd be against any UN agenda on urban renewal just out of principle.
Post by
Skreeran
Why would you be strongly againt controlling carbon emissions? Who cares how the economy is if the world is uninhabitable in another century?
And before this blows up into a huge discussion, I think my entire argument can be summed up with one three-minute video.
Edit:
And another.
Edit 2:
And of course, this one.
Post by
ChairmanKaga
The problem is that the whole climate change debate has become an unholy fusion of science and politics.
On the science alone, it's difficult to make the argument that climate change isn't happening. But as soon as you hand that over to the world politicians to do something about it, it turns into a game of "let's smack the USA around with this since we can't do it militarily". And yes, I realize I sound like a Rush Limbaugh tape there.
It would probably help the climate change case if its biggest proponents weren't rich, hypocritical ^&*!@#nozzles. You've got Al Gore telling us little people how bad carbon emissions are, but apparently they're fine when they're coming out of his magical private jet.
Post by
Skreeran
The way I see it, twisting it and distorting it and underhandedly using it for political advantage is better than ignoring it and having the Earth end up uninhabitable.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't have an opinion on agenda 21 specifically, but I am strongly opposed to the idea of controlling carbon emissions and madmade global warming destroying the world, putting special interest environmental concerns ahead of economic concerns, and I am VERY strongly opposed to the UN influencing US policy so directly. So I guess because of all those reasons I'd be against any UN agenda on urban renewal just out of principle.
Let me rephrase that in the context of another UN stance:
"I don't have an opinion on <x> specifically, but I am strongly opposed to the idea of controlling
nuclear energy research
destroying the world, putting special interest
political
concerns ahead of economic concerns, and I am VERY strongly opposed to the UN influencing
Iranian
policy so directly. So I guess because of all those reasons I'd be against any UN agenda on
nuclear proliferation
just out of principle."
If you don't have any concerns with this statement, then I can accept your argument. Otherwise, all I see is a stereotypical "we're the US, the world can't tell us what to do" reaction to something that is a global issue and needs addressing on a global basis.
Post by
montezuma7
Maybe I should've been more precise. I am against carbon offsets and excessive regulation when there's no proof man made carbon is causing global warming. Of course I don't think we should all drive 10 mpg suvs or replace nuclear power with coal. I'm just against excessive regulation for the sake of global warming. All carbon offset regulation does is setup a fake currency/market system whereby sellers can take money from buyers of the offsets. Nearly all of the regulation is not about protecting the environment but about control of who can produce what, when, where and how. This is specifically for carbon emissions. I am in favor of good regulation in regards to air and water quality.
Also the main culprit of carbon emissions these days is China. So many want to hamper the US specifically, but also other western nations like much of the EU, when really if we want to globally reduce emissions we must look at China first, because they have the worst regulation and are growing the fastest. It's very hypocritical to me for everyone to point the finger at the US but ignore China, which is no longer a developing country industrially.
If you think Iran is only researching nuclear energy you are crazy. Everyone knows Iran runs a very thinly veiled dictatorship, run by religious fanatics. There's a huge difference between saying "we want to regulate US economic/environmental policies" and "we want to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb and wiping out millions of innocent lives."
The UN is mostly a conglomeration of a bunch of developing small countries who pass policies to try to take money from modern, wealthier nations. It's global redistribution. It's global governance that one day could quite possibly lead to totalitarianism. I'd feel the same way about the UN if I lived in say Germany or France, where I'd prefer to let my elected officials make our policy decisions and not a global conglomeration that doesn't have our best interests at heart.
But anyway, agenda 21? Is it just some urban renewal plan or is it more than that? Kind of hard to tell.
Post by
Ordayc
Also the main culprit of carbon emissions these days is China. So many want to hamper the US specifically, but also other western nations like much of the EU, when really if we want to globally reduce emissions we must look at China first, because they have the worst regulation and are growing the fastest. It's very hypocritical to me for everyone to point the finger at the US but ignore China, which is no longer a developing country industrially.
I'm not very familiar with this topic, but judging simply by
this wikipedia article
, this is a pretty bold statement to make. Yes, China's emissions are the largest of any country in the world, but so is its population. On a per-capita basis, the US's emissions are still almost three times as high as China's. Judging a country without accounting for its population would mean that most of Europe's countries (which are tiny compared to the US, China, India, etc.) basically could do whatever they want to.
Post by
gamerunknown
Not to mention that US companies creating products in China for US markets are counted as Chinese emissions. Nor that there's broad scientific consensus as to man's contribution to climate change and that "proof" as a scientific concept has been dead for several decades (science now progresses by falsification).
It's not the only
fact challenged issue though
.
Post by
Squishalot
Also the main culprit of carbon emissions these days is China. So many want to hamper the US specifically, but also other western nations like much of the EU, when really if we want to globally reduce emissions we must look at China first, because they have the worst regulation and are growing the fastest. It's very hypocritical to me for everyone to point the finger at the US but ignore China, which is no longer a developing country industrially.
I'm not very familiar with this topic, but judging simply by
this wikipedia article
, this is a pretty bold statement to make. Yes, China's emissions are the largest of any country in the world, but so is its population. On a per-capita basis, the US's emissions are still almost three times as high as China's. Judging a country without accounting for its population would mean that most of Europe's countries (which are tiny compared to the US, China, India, etc.) basically could do whatever they want to.
I like to point people to
this graphic
, which shows the total carbon emissions side by side with the per-capita carbon emissions.
Ignoring the countries with very low populations on the right hand side, the larger circles represent those countries that have the most to do to reduce emissions.
China is growing the fastest, but it has a long way to go before it gets anywhere near as bad as any of the Western developed nations on a per-capita basis.
If you think Iran is only researching nuclear energy you are crazy. Everyone knows Iran runs a very thinly veiled dictatorship, run by religious fanatics. There's a huge difference between saying "we want to regulate US economic/environmental policies" and "we want to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb and wiping out millions of innocent lives."
Of course I know they want nuclear weapons. However, it's a political issue about them not having access to nuclear weapons. If you let Iran have a nuclear bomb, they may kill millions, billions of people. If you let the developed nations of the world keep polluting, it may also kill millions, billions of people. If you're happy to sanction Iran and sacrifice their economic growth and output in order to save people in the future, then you yourself should be happy to be sanctioned for the same reasons. No matter which way you spin it around, you can't argue that the UN is right to impose restrictions on others but not you.
Considering the number of acts of aggression made by countries, the UN would be more justified in telling the US to shut down its nuclear armament, not countries that a) have no evidence of nuclear arms testing and b) have zero incentive to start a nuclear war.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
